LatinAviation From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1277 posts, RR: 15 Posted (9 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4292 times:
From this morning's NY Post, anyone have more information?
RICH STARS and VIPs who miss the Concorde's faster-than-sound flights between New York, Paris and London can take heart from the former head of Eurostar and British Airways. Hamish Taylor says he is leasing two Boeing 757-200's to fill the Concorde luxury void. They won't be as fast, but far more posh. He'll divide the planes into four cabins of 12 seats, each of which can be extended to make beds. He'll include changing rooms, phones, fax and Internet access, if possible.
These planes will carry 48 passengers instead of the normal 228. Prices will run about $7,000 for round-trip flights, and you'll get a chauffeur-driven car to and from the airport. Landing in the U.S.A. will be at Newark Airport.
N77014 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 4244 times:
[quote=TIMC,reply=2]Why is he doing this though?
You can already do MAN > EWR on CO, why make a 757 into a luxury plane and send it accross the pond, is there actually a market for it?
There might have been a market for a business/corporate shuttle operation with blocked seats or capacity buyout.
If it does work, I see it in the charter market or as a lease/fractional operation. Quite simply, if you've ever tried the fractional bizjet experience, you will likely never go back to scheduled air service again.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 4164 times:
From an enthusiasts point of view, it sounds interesting - but I dont think that it will work from a business point of view. The Concorde was all about speed - while the amenities onboard were very, very nice, the pax paid the extra money to fly Concorde in order to get accross the Atlantic is 3 hours, The Concorde was most popular with the "time is money" crowd. ALthough this service sounds very nice, BA (and the others) already offers a very good First Class product out of NYC many times per day into LHR. BA has many departures to allow in order to be flexible for business travellers, and then there is the FF program issue to consider.
The other issue is which London airport will this flight use? Its going to be hard to convince premium pax to fly into STN or LUT.
JGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 4138 times:
I just looked him up. Apparently Hamish Taylor was head of Brand Management at BA (ooh, a Waterside fluffy bunny job if ever there was one), and, according to the website of his employer, Vision, he also worked at Eurostar.
Bsmalls35 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4061 times:
I guess for those first class and business travelers who can afford the $7,000 round trip ticket, it will be nice to have another option to get to London. Oh yeah, I guess this new start up will be in competition with Primus, that is if either one of them gets off the ground.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3033 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3858 times:
This sounds like Fly First this thread is referring to...
They will operate two 752's between LTN-EWR and intend to operate the aircrafts in an all first class layout with flat beds and will only seat 48 passengers.
Im waiting for the jokes and "piss-takes" from all those people that love bashing LTN, about its wonderful facilities and location!
They will use the Signature Aviation Exectutive terminal located near the Holiday Inn Express and where most private jets use when arriving at the airport. I have never been privileged to see/use the facility but it seems good enough for Saudi and Kuwaiti Royal Families and other celebrites and mega stars. Luton handles more private/biz bets than any other UK airport and has toped over 27,000 movements in the last year, so makes little surprise they have chosen the airport over other London airports.
There has been a lot of speculation about this service for the last six months and nothing has yet been confirmed. There have been promises from other airlines to operate similar services to the USA from LTN and STN over the last few years and never materialised, so I still remain sceptical. I personally think something like Privat Air's business model will work better that operates from a few German cities using the A319 CRJ and 737 BJ.
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3781 times:
Different connection though, but in thread BSL-EWR Relaunch Ahead (by RJ100 May 29 2005 in Civil Aviation) there´s discussion going on to introduce BSL - EWR service, basically in order to fulfill the demands of one important customer ...
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
Tsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3659 times:
well sounds like an international MGM Grand Air to me...if you can't sell enough seats to rich folks between NYC and LAX, I'm skeptical that NYC LON will work either, plus 3hrs slower than Concorde...but, I'm always glad to see more air service choices from NYC so good luck!
N770WD From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
In answer to the question about B757 costs across the Atlantic -
Currrent lease rates to a reputable operator for a B757 capable of transatlantic operations (ETOPS, RB211-535E4s, etc.) are between $150,000 and $180,000 depending on the condition of the aircraft. Reconfiguration into an all-first, ultra-luxury configuration will run $4 million (conservatively) and be financed over a 48-month window, IF a bank will finance custom improvements (not likely). Approximate aircraft cost is therefore $250,000. Insurance (hull, liability and war risk) per month will run around $75,000 per aircraft depending on the fleet size, coverage, etc. Total aircraft cost is therefore in the order of $325,000 per month. A startup is likely to get 25 round-trips per month out of a ten-year-old B757, so aircraft cost per trip is roughly $6,500.
Fuel burn for a Rolls-powered B757 is about 1,150 gallons per hour for LTN-EWR. A startup operator is unlikely to have ETOPS/120 or ETOPS/180, so flight times can be 8 hours or more. Typical fuel burn is therefore 9,200 gallons, with in-wing fuel costs at LTN or EWR of $1.70 for a startup. So fuel burn might be $16,000 per trip with fees.
Maintenance will depend on many factors, including whether the startup airline elects for a power-by-the-hour agreement on the engines. Typical 757 airframe (heavy-check) reserves are $100 per block hour; engine restoration of $150 per flight hour, per engine; $100 per cycle for LLPs; and maybe another $250 per hour in line, gear, APU, etc. A startup will probably budget $750 per block hour plus $1,000 per cycle in maintenance costs, or about $7,000 per trip for a B757. The age and condition of the aircraft and engines can lower this cost significantly, but usually those aircraft have higher lease rates.
For crew, a non-ETOPS operator is likely to have three flight deck [trip length is over eight hours] and at least five cabin crew members on a B757. That's about $40,000 per crew per month; it takes five crews to run 25 trips per month. Crew salaries and benefits are therefore $4,000 per flight. In addition, crew hotels, transport, per diems, etc. can add $1,500 on a typical rotation.
Airport and overflight fees vary. Transatlantic flights have special check-in, profiling, security and other requirements that complicate ground handling. With cleaning, departure costs from the UK can easily top $4,000 per flight for a startup airline. A startup would also budget $2,000 in overflight fees, $1,500 in landing fees at EWR, and at least $2,500 in terminal and arrival fees at EWR.
Finally, a startup would have catering and amenities. It's hard to say what this new airline would provision on the aircraft, but it wouldn't be cheap.
Then you have to consider overhead. A lean startup with a marketing budget will burn around $2,500,000 per month in SG&A. Amortizing this across a two-aircraft fleet with 100 trips per month (2 a/c * 25 r/t per month * 2 segments per r/t) means a $25,000 overhead burden.
Fully-loaded 757 trip cost would therefore be about $70,000 for a startup, NOT COUNTING the lavish in-flight amenities.
Assuming 25 paying passengers per flight (this is aggressive unless this new airline has an amazing product) the one-way fare would need to be $2,800, or about $5,900 with all taxes and fees.
The 757 is a compelling aircraft for an all-first product across the Atlantic. The problem is that the number of markets where a startup can capture 25 paying passengers each way is VERY limited.
Two big problems though apart from the obvious market entry and dynamics. First, the aircraft configuration itself can be problematic. The FAA will push back on a complex cabin configuration with different zones. Startups in the US have hit trouble on this point. Conditions for a UK-flag carrier might be easier. Second, operating without ETOPS has its problems, especially during the winter when Keflavik can be ineligible as an alternate.
Planemannyc From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1008 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3415 times:
Great post! Thanks for the calcuations. Don't forget to add the limo service on both ends. Granted, probably $50-100 pp in the NY end, probably more in the Luton end. How does a start up get ETOPs clearance?
N770WD From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3314 times:
While the regulations for ETOPS are similar on both sides of the Atlantic, there hasn't been a startup that's yet needed ETOPS out of the box on the US side and been successful at implementing in scheduled service. Atlantic Express and MAXjet will be pursuing this year. To start the qualification process, you need crews, mechanical and aircraft capabilities. But if you follow the regulations, it can take 12 months of operations or more to reach the first level of ETOPS, 120 minutes, for a US-flag carrier. Count on another year to reach ETOPS/180. During that qualification period, engine performance and other factors are measured and assessed. The longer the operating history of the airline, the easier it is to prove those factors -- this is why charter airlines like Omni and Ryan were able to implement ETOPS/180 quicker than the 12-24 month timetable for a new startup. Given the complexity of new carrier certification in the US, the odds of successfully implementing certification and ETOPS qualification out of the box is very, very low. This has been a real advantage for European carriers.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5197 posts, RR: 22
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3185 times:
Wouldn't it behoove a startup service like this to partner with an established operator, at least initially? As that carrier in Texas found out when trying to run a luxury service from DAL, you can burn through all your startup capital just trying to get an operating plan approved, as the FAA dicks you around on stuff like galley configuration (IIRC), pilot training, operating procedures, etc., etc., etc. A carrier like North American already has the 757 on its roster, already has ETOPS, has a history of specially-configuring its aircraft (e.g. the Bush-Cheney charter), and has predictable costs. Yes, the profitability of any given flight will be lower, but you could get going faster and more predictably, and devote your energy to marketing and sales, which is going to be the biggest challenge. Also, the perceived safety advantage of using a scheduled carrier over a startup may be important to these folks and those that look out for them.
I also believe that it is highly unlikely that this guy could pull off this service on a flight that takes substantially LONGER in the air than a commercial carrier. If they can get you on and off the aircraft faster, you can probably get away with a slightly longer flight time, but not an extra hour or two.
As to "why not just take a biz jet", the proposed price of a ticket is key. If it's $3500 each way per person, that's $14,000 for a party of 4. A one-way trip on a Gulfstream is going to cost between $50 and $70 thousand. Even if you have seven high-powered folks travelling together, there's still a substantial price differential.
FRA2DTW From Germany, joined Feb 2004, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3056 times:
Many corporations today don't like to put all of their top execs onto one plane, in case of a disaster. They spread them around the various flights and carriers, all in first class of course. This has become even more popular with current terrorism concerns against corporate America.
Ricci767 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 3013 times:
But I thought that one of the major reasons Concorde was slashed was because in the decline of regular customers who were killed or quit or whatever by the 9/11 attacks. So how can they start this service when there is a lack of customers?
Sorry if this is mentioned above, I have the most terrible habit of only skimming threads.